US experts believe that Tehran has devised specific, pre-determined responses to any US action against Iran or its allies across the region; this state of readiness on Iran's part is fully understood by the White House and Washington’s allies on the shores of the Persian Gulf.
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired US officer, and Trita Parsi, head of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, offered their analyses regarding the likelihood of the US entering a war and Iran’s potential responses to such actions.
Wilkerson believes that for every rung of the escalation ladder—whether in direct confrontation or through attacks orchestrated by its allies—Iran has designated specific missiles or tools commensurate with the level of tension. He suggests that while the US might intend to use Eritrea as a launchpad for attacks, the entire region remains within the firing range of Iran and Ansarullah.
Parsi, however, emphasizes the likelihood that Arab nations—and consequently the US—might reconsider attacking the Yemeni resistance. He believes Saudi Arabia made a serious miscalculation by attacking Sana'a Airport and reigniting the war in Yemen. He concludes that, given the US has also previously tasted defeat at the hands of the Yemeni resistance, it may wish to re-evaluate its decisions.
Iran has designated specific missiles for every rung of the escalation ladder.
According to Colonel Wilkerson, Iran possesses a multi-stage target list to respond to US and Israeli attacks, ranging from US military targets to economic and energy infrastructure, and ultimately extending to broad targets across the region. In the first phase, the focus was on US bases and forces; however, in the second phase, economic and energy infrastructure—including oil terminals, oil facilities, and refineries—were added to the target list. The third phase involves more strategic targets, such as major oil facilities in Saudi Arabia or Iraq, attacks on which could severely disrupt the production and transport of petroleum products from the Persian Gulf.
Wilkerson believes this progression could reach a fourth level: an attack on any target in the region Iran chooses, including political and governmental centers.
In his view, Iran has prepared missile capabilities commensurate with each of these levels; as the US climbs the escalation ladder, Iran will calibrate its response to a correspondingly higher level.
Eritrea may be the location the US is considering as a starting point for an attack on the Yemeni resistance.
The retired military officer believes that Ansarallah possesses its own distinct interests, needs, and calculations; consequently, the issue regarding them is somewhat separate from a direct US war with Iran. Pointing to Trump’s hesitation—following a request from Mohammed bin Salman—to strike Ansarallah positions in Yemen, he views this vacillation as a sign that US policy regarding this front is still taking shape.
Wilkerson then notes the possibility of the US using Eritrea as an operational platform to strike the Yemeni resistance from across the Red Sea, describing this idea as highly dangerous. Such a move would entail establishing a base or launch point for operations—potentially even amphibious ones—on the Eritrean coast and deploying forces toward Ansarallah’s flank in Yemen; these forces themselves would then be vulnerable to missile and drone attacks by Iran and Ansarallah. All US movements in East Africa are within the range of Iran and Ansarullah.
According to this military expert, any US attempt to expand operations to the eastern shores of the Red Sea—particularly by utilizing Eritrea—could have far-reaching humanitarian and security consequences for the region. He emphasizes that Eritrea and other East African coastal nations are already grappling with profound political, economic, migration-related, and environmental crises; direct US involvement in this equation could exacerbate instability and intensify hostility toward Washington.
Furthermore, launching an amphibious operation from Eritrea—or even from the southern coast of Yemen—carries significant military risk; US forces traversing the Red Sea would be exposed to Ansarullah’s missiles and drones, and it remains unclear whether the US possesses sufficient forces to undertake such an operation.
Trump's hesitation about attacking Yemen indicates a change in calculations regarding Iran
In Trita Parsi's analysis, Trump's wavering about attacking Ansarullah shows a serious doubt in Washington about the cost and consequences of such an operation. He believes that America has experienced its attacks against Ansarullah before, but could not achieve the desired result, and now this group is in a stronger position than before.
Therefore, part of the American military circles are skeptical about the possibility of achieving success in an even different operation. Parsi also believes that an attack on Ansarullah can lead to a reaction from Iran or Iraqi forces and eventually lead America into a wider war; A factor that can be one of the main reasons for Trump's frequent change of decision to launch an attack.
Iran is ready to expand the battlefield once again
Trita Parsi then points to Iran's widespread alertness after receiving indications about the possibility of an American attack, and says that this type of reaction is more than an act to send a threatening message to Washington; He emphasizes that Iran has gone through a defensive reaction at this stage and is ready to respond to any American attack on Ansarullah quickly and directly or through Iraqi forces, and is fully ready to expand the war even more.
Arab countries, especially Saudi Arabia, are prone to repeating a calculation error several times
The director of the Quincy Institute also talks about the recent changes in Saudi Arabia, which should be understood in the context of Riyadh's efforts to simultaneously manage its relations with Iran and Trump. He considers Saudi Arabia's withdrawal from the SWIFT alternative financial mechanism to be meaningful in terms of time, and it is possible that Riyadh is seeking to win Trump's approval or create a basis for more American cooperation by offering concessions that are valuable to Trump.
He then reviews the history of the last few years and explains that while the Saudi-Yemen front had calmed down following the process of normalizing relations between Riyadh and Ansarullah with the mediation of China and a relatively stable situation was established, the Saudi miscalculation in the attack on Sana'a airport led to the formation of the current situation.
Parsi believes that by considering this calculation error and paying attention to some news that indicate the agreement of the Persian Gulf countries with Trump's attack on Iran, we can be sure that Tehran is on full alert and this issue may cause the countries of the region to reconsider their decisions before the war expands in a double manner.
